Abstract
Volleyball players often land on a single leg following a spike shot due to a shift in the center of gravity and loss of balance. Landing on a single leg following a spike may increase the probability of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the kinematics and kinetics differences during the landing phase of volleyball players using a single leg (SL) and double-leg landing (DL) following a spike shot. The data for vertical ground reaction forces (VGRF) and sagittal plane were collected. SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a smaller knee flexion angle (about 13.8°) and hip flexion angle (about 10.8°) during the whole landing phase, a greater knee and hip power during the 16.83–20.45% (p = 0.006) and 13.01–16.26% (p = 0.008) landing phase, a greater ankle plantarflexion angle and moment during the 0–41.07% (p < 0.001) and 2.76–79.45% (p < 0.001) landing phase, a greater VGRF during the 5.87–8.25% (p = 0.029), 19.75–24.14% (p = 0.003) landing phase when compared to DL. Most of these differences fall within the time range of ACL injury (30–50 milliseconds after landing). To reduce non-contact ACL injuries, a landing strategy of consciously increasing the hip and knee flexion, and plantarflexion of the ankle should be considered by volleyball players.
Highlights
As a competitive sport, volleyball has a high rate of musculoskeletal injury [1]
statistical parametric mapping (SPM) analysis revealed that single leg (SL) depicted a significantly greater plantarflexion angle than double-leg landing (DL) during the 0–41.07% (SL: −19.8~24.6◦, DL: −8.6~29.7◦, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater plantarflexion moment than DL during the 2.76–79.45% (SL: −1.01~−1.41 Nm/kg, DL: −0.45~−0.52 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint power than DL during the 2.48–9.66% (SL: −5.20~−31.37 W/kg, DL: −2.12~−10.25 W/kg, p < 0.001) and 12.92–26.95% (SL: −19.71~−2.89 W/kg, DL: −6.14~−0.65 W/kg, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater dorsiflexion angular velocity than DL during the 0–23.54% (SL: 756.3~102.4◦/s, DL: 509.9~18.2◦/s, p < 0.001) and 44.73–47.63% (SL: 16.2~12.0◦/s, DL: 17.4~21.1◦/s, p = 0.016) landing phase (Figure 4)
SPM analysis revealed that SL depicted a significantly smaller flexion angle than DL during the 0–100% (SL: −7.0~−72.2◦, DL: −20.7~−97.6◦, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly smaller flexion angular velocity than DL during the 0–32.69% (SL: −293.9~−157.9◦/s, DL: −407.3~−275.9◦/s, p < 0.001) and 44.36–55.40% (SL: −107.1~−43.9◦/s, DL: −195.8~−133.6◦/s, p = 0.014) landing phase, a significantly greater extension moment than DL during the 3.86–4.27% (p = 0.048) and 11.73–12.32% (p = 0.045) and 17.74–21.82% (3.03~4.16 Nm/kg, DL: 2.73~2.49 Nm/kg, p < 0.001) landing phase, a significantly greater joint power than DL during the 16.83–20.45% (SL: −25.9~−29.3 W/kg, DL: −16.4~−23.8 W/kg, p = 0.006) landing phase (Figure 4)
Summary
The special movements of volleyball, such as jumping, landing, blocking, and spiking, need to be combined with fast movements, that put very high demands on the musculoskeletal system of volleyball players. This can cause considerable damage to the musculoskeletal system of players [2,3]. High-level volleyball players are prone to suffering lower limb injury following overuse caused by continuous blocking and attacking [3,4,5] This is especially true for the knee joint which is injured in the energy transmission process because it comprises of a joint capsule with multiple joints.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
